Unused ‘Blade Runner’ Footage Mistaken for Fan Edit

A video posted in 2014 by YouTube user “Uchuu Daisakusen” has recently been described by some pop culture bloggers as short version of Blade Runner (1982) comprised entirely of deleted scenes and alternate takes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBPNQ4M-xM

It began with a tweet by Annapurna Pictures:

A 45-minute cut of BLADE RUNNER using only B-roll footage & takes that never made it into the final film // https://t.co/ttler2Ckmj

Later that day, Lauren Davis at io9 wrote a brief article about the video, adding:

There are already multiple official versions of Ridley Scott’s classic film Blade Runner, but YouTuber Uchuu Daisakusen managed to make a completely different cut using just the B-roll from the film and takes that ended up on the cutting room floor. Check out their 45-minute version of Rick Deckard’s journey.1

Other bloggers either recycled Davis’s writing or also mistook the work to be a fan edit. For example, John Wenz at Popular Mechanics called it a new cut of Blade Runner which “may not be official but it’s officially gorgeous,” while BAADASSSSS! at Geeks of Doom speculated about its origins:

The discarded footage Daisakusen employed to create this unique perspective of Scott’s futuristic film noir classic was likely taken from the voluminous supplements found on the 30th Anniversary Edition Blu-ray of Blade Runner, which is one of the best Blus currently on the market and thus is something you should absolutely own already.2

However, it was quickly revealed that the content of the video was actually Blade Runner: Deleted and Alternate Scenes (2007), a chronological assembly of unused material that was supervised by Charles de Lauzirika and originally included as a bonus on the comprehensive Blade Runner DVD set. Davis subsequently revised her article and explained:

Charles de Lauzirika wrote in to point out that this is the cut that he and his production team created eight years ago and that this cut has been available on home video releases from Warner Bros. I originally miscredited the cut, believing it was a new cut, and I apologize to the production team.3

Previously, the same video had been shared without attribution to de Lauzirika on YouTube (JohnnySRB Belgrade, 2013) and Vimeo (BladeRunner2, 2013), but those entries were apparently undiscovered or overlooked. Although a quick web search could have correctly identified the video, it’s intriguing that Davis and others assumed it was a fan edit and composed their articles without looking further. Frankly, at first glance, it’s an understandable mistake while fan edits continue to gain prominence. In past writing, I have argued that culture is moving toward greater acceptance of pluralistic forms in cinema and a wider understanding of films existing in multiple versions. Sanctioned film versions, including director’s cuts, extended cuts, and unrated cuts, as well as the emergence of unsanctioned versions such as fan edits, contribute to this evolution in the way people think of movies. This recent episode is evidence of that change; fan edits are increasingly accepted for what they are and now even sanctioned alternate works are mistaken for fan edits.

Davis, Lauren. 2015. “This 45-Minute Blade Runner Cut Is Made Of Footage Not In The Final Film.” June 9, io9. http://io9.com/this-45-minute-blade-runner-cut-is-made-of-footage-not-1710199373. ↵

Davis, Lauren. 2015. “This 45-Minute Blade Runner Cut Is Made Of Footage Not In The Final Film (Updated).” June 9, io9. http://io9.com/this-45-minute-blade-runner-cut-is-made-of-footage-not-1710199373. ↵